The New Jim Crow Chapter 2 and 3

Posted on by

As I read more of the book, I find it intriguing that she’s asking a lot of questions that I’ve never though about before. She brings up a lot of good points. From what I know those who are randomly searched are more likely to be of color than not. People may say it’s random but it really isn’t and is based on the persons bias. Due to the stereotypes that have been followed African Americans, it’s unfortunate to see them being viewed as a certain way when in fact it isn’t true that they’re the group to do most drugs etc. She also talks about how the 4th Amendment has been bent so that officers can search your things if under reasonable suspicion. She see’s it as a downfall to people’s right but I actually think it’s somewhat necessary for officers to do their job. If there’s really something suspicion going on, and they have to get a warrant, that person may ultimately get away in the end since the officers have no grounds to arrest them.

She’s extremely skeptical of everything and since I’m not much a conspiracist, I can’t really see eye to eye with her on everything. For example she makes it sounds like police officers were originally told to target African Americans and make it so that only African Americans should be arrested when she says, “The first step is to grant law enforcements extraordinarily discretion when regarding whom to stop, search, arrest, and charge for drug offenses, thus ensuring that conscious and unconscious racial beliefs and stereotypes will be given free rein”. I believe that there is racism whether it be intentional or unintentional when arresting African Americans but I don’t believe that it was purposely set up from the very beginning for African Americans to be victims.

New Jim Crow, Ch 2-3

Posted on by

 

“Quite to the contrary, arrests for marijuana possession— a drug less harmful than tobacco or alcohol— accounted for nearly 80 percent of the growth in drug arrests in the 1990s” (Michelle  ) Cheers! I support this whole-heartedly. It seems like a habit in this country – that we constantly get fixated on trivial matters in politics and argue fanatically about them when we could be spending our time and money in much better and more humanity-oriented ways. Does the government care about testing a drug like marijuana and seeing if it actually is less harmful than legal substances? It would help cut down on the prison rate if they legalized it. But I wonder if science even matters in this case… from what Michelle is saying politics have the last word, and politics have decided marijuana should be a very singular conquering campaign for law enforcement.

A lot of what Michelle is saying in Chapter 2 definitely resonates with me. This line in particular stood out to me, “In the years [from 1982 to 1991], the Court has heard argument in 30 Fourth Amendment cases involving narcotics. In all but one, the government was the petitioner. All save two involved a search or seizure without a warrant or with a defective warrant” (Michelle 62). She goes on to list some more things, but what kind of jarred me was, “In all but one, the government was the petitioner”. It’s kind of scary actually, especially because these are nonviolent crimes. Its like we’re moving into a dystopian future where the government controls our lives. Seems to me that at least 50% of the petitioners should have been citizens for the numbers to be fair, because the government was founded as an institution for the people, to protect the people. Not to act on its own as a watchful eye on the people. And the law, to me, should be mainly for citizens seeking to get justice, not the government.

The New Jim Crow: Chapters 2 and 3

Posted on by

Chapter 2 of the book talks about the fourth amendment, where peoples civil rights are mentioned. According to law, a police officer must read the person he/she is arresting the person’s Miranda Rights. However, the problem with this is that if the people do not know they have the right to remain silent, then there is no point in the existence of these rights. Similarly, according to the Reform Acts, the suspects were asked before their possessions were searched. However, if these people did not know they had the right to refuse, then what is the point of the right’s existence? It exists for the sake of mere formality.

Furthermore, Alexander also brings up the idea of discrimination and inherent feelings of racism. For example, when a group of seemingly “unbiased” whites were asked who they thought were most likely to be the drug dealers/users, most of them replied African Americans. In reality, however, there are more whites who use and sell drugs than there are blacks. This is indicative of the feelings of racism that has unfortunately seemed to embed itself into the heart of this nation.

The New Jim Crow: Chapters 2 and 3

Posted on by

The first thing that struck me as odd was the way the author wrote about our justice system. She brings up statistics which really strive to distort the data to fit her thoughts. For example, she talks about how the system is not geared towards trying to catch the drug dealers, and she cites the statistic that only 1 out of every 5 arrests for drug possession are dealers. My problem with that statistic is the fact that a dealer generally caters to more than one person, and so, if the goal is to fight drug possession, getting a drug dealer for every 4 users seems extraordinary.

But she brings in other skewed data as well, and passes them off as facts. The “fact” that there are paid witnesses, and that the justice system has a lot of flaws is only evidence that the justice system has a lot of flaws. That’s it. It doesn’t mean that the system is skewed; it means that people are. The fact that there is something wrong with the people means that the people need to be fixed.

The question of whether the system is flawed or the people are flawed is a very big one in this book. The idea, however, that you could change the system to fit the ideals of one group of people, specifically when the main group of people running the system have mixed feelings about that minority group, is absurd. Thus, I cannot agree with Ms. Alexander any less.

My question is to the author: Does she really believe that the justice system today would be all that bad, even if we were to take the ideas of people out of the picture? Does the fact that the system was made by people make the system itself that bad?

Ch. 2 and 3

Posted on by

As I read about how polices searched people during the Drug War, I wondered if what they were doing was okay. They did ask the people for permission to search bags and if permission was granted then they were able to search. On one hand, the people did not know that they could say no to the police; however, the police were able to more efficiently search for drugs.

The Reform Act had some flaws and I wonder what the purpose for these laws to be made were. For example, if you owned property that someone else was using for drugs, you could be held guilty. Also, many people were not willing to pay more for  an attorney than what their assets cost. Finally, the government, instead of making expelling drug crime their first priority, often seizes assets because of the revenue it will bring in. I was wondering how true these claims are about the Reform Act and if there are any statistics to support this information.

Feedback on The New Jim Crow Chapters 2 & 3

Posted on by

In Chapter 2 of The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander talks about the Fourth Amendment, which warrants against unreasonable search and seizure, which is rarely mentioned today. I then realized that the problem now is that we are not told about our civil rights and liberties, which results in our loss of agency and power. This especially happens to more disenfranchised groups such as African Americans and Latinos, in addition to other racial and ethnic groups deemed “suspicious”. To those who believe that it is fair for black people to be unfairly targeted as “criminals”, is it fair for Latinos in Arizona to be stopped and checked for a green card to make sure that they’re not “illegal”? is it justifiable for Muslim and Arab Americans to be checked in airports to make sure that they’re not “terrorists”? All of these practices consist of the violation of the Fourth Amendment today.

In Chapter 3, a social psychology experiment is mentioned, which show that many white people, even the ones who said that they were unbiased, perceived drug criminals to be African-American. Negative stereotypes occur with other racial groups as well. I read in an article that many Americans reply in hostility when they see a sign in Spanish, because they believe that English should be the main language, even the only language, spoken in the United States. The mild hostility towards people of color is definitely a problem. In order for the criminal justice system to change, not only do Americans have to recognize their rights, but they also have to change their perceptions of others who they view as different from them.

Controversial

Posted on by

I’m surprised that I’ve never heard about this book on the news before because it deals with such a controversial topic.  Michelle Alexander claims that the War on Drugs is a conspiracy to continue racial discrimination and encourage racial injustices.  In the first chapter, Alexander reasons that there never should have been a War on Drugs because there wasn’t really a drug problem.  In the second and third chapters, she provides many examples of how the War has been used to incriminate blacks.  With all the information she provides, people have to wonder if African Americans really are being targeted.

Alexander does not include much information about what happens in court cases, similar to the ones she had mentioned, when the accused are white.  While it would be nice if she could give a fuller picture, I don’t expect her to, simply because this book reminds me of a persuasive essay.  The chapters in this book are already long, and bringing in the other cases might weaken her argument.  If people want to learn more about the other side, that information should be available in another book; it does not belong in this one.

In these two chapters, I am most curious about how it is legal for SWAT teams to invade people’s homes.  It doesn’t make any sense to me.  Also, when these invasions happen, the authorities are looking for drugs.  Why would they need the SWAT team to do that in the first place?

The New Jim Crow: Chapters 2 and 3

Posted on by

To be completely honest, I didn’t really know much about the Reagan administration War on Drugs at the beginning of the book. When Alexander mentioned it in the introduction I was able to understand the big picture, but I was still hoping she would later explain it in more detail. Sure enough, in Chapters 2 and 3, I got what I had been hoping for.

Chapter 2 was filled with court case after court case, some of which were familiar to me from my high school government class. Other pieces of information weren’t so familiar, like how the police officers could use “pretext stops” in order to try and search for any illegal drug activity. I was curious as to how the police officers would decide on who to stop. Maybe I’m wrong, but the whole thing just seems a bit too subjective to me. What one officer may consider to be suspicious could be perfectly normal to another officer. While reading, I could understand Michelle Alexanders frustration and I could see how she could think that African Americans were targeted.

As for Chapter 3, she begins the chapter with two very interesting cases of an African American man and woman whose rights were taken as a result of incarceration. The woman, for example, was no longer eligible for food stamps and was about to be evicted. I do agree with the fact that there is a problem with what is going on in the lives of that man and woman, but once again the question I have to ask is, what about whites? I appreciate the fact that this time, Alexander takes the time to mention that the incarceration rates for drug offenses for whites had been rising as well, however where are those case studies? I am sure that if she looked hard enough, she would have found a white woman and man in the same exact situations – disadvantaged because they were former felons. Yes, her argument would not be as strong, but at least she would be presenting both cases to the reader in an efficient way.

The New Jim Crow Response #2

Posted on by

Chapter 2 and 3 in The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander discusses the injustice involved with incarcerations related to drug use. While reading it, I wondered why there is so little interest on the subject when a lot of the issues with the War on Drugs sound preposterous. For instance, Alexander explains the conflict of interest with police stations in terms of arrests. For example, she states that police officers had an incentive for making random searches in order to get more people arrested in order to get increase their budget and by having a stake in the confiscated assets of drug related crimes. In fact, the book gave an example where a former officer stated that the Pentagon would give any equipment needed for the drug war. These weapons made it possible for police and SWAT team members to storm into a house and confiscated a Learjet from a millionaire who was suspected for owning drugs yet none were found. I wonder what would happen if the cases Alexander bring up were to be brought into a more mainstream audience. It also appeared as a surprise to me because I am pretty sure that if more individuals were aware of the treatment that the incarcerated faced, there would be more activists. However, if imprisonment and drug users become more stigmatized from society due to media influence, I fear that many individuals will refuse to care about their rights.

Another thing from the two chapters that I enjoyed was Alexander’s acknowledgement of how improbable the War on Drug’s policies would be if it were attached to white middle class Americans. In fact, she labeled the action as political suicide. On top of that many judges are against the unjust protocol of sentencing. Her example of a case of an individual who was charged with possessing powdered cocaine instead of crack cocaine was brought to attention. Black individuals frequently used crack cocaine, while more affluent white individual used powdered cocaine. In the case, the judge’s sentence was appealed and the defendant was sent back to prison for an additional 10 years after he married and had his own family. This gives an image of the chips being stacked against Black and Brown Americans. The SWAT home invasions on fraternity houses and suburban houses with affluent and well represented connections where drugs are equally as prevalent is disregarded for poor urban environments where the individuals at that location would be unable to get much of a representation. My anticipation for Alexander’s solution for the injustice against young Black males grows even stronger. At this moment, I would think that financial incentives should be cut from police stations, and I also think assistive housing and employers should not be required to know about whether or not an applicant was previously arrested. Although this would not immediately solve the problem, it would curb the major incentive for more arrests and for former prisoners to successfully reintegrate into society.

Fairness and Irony

Posted on by

In The New Jim Crow, the author presents many points that bolster her argument regarding the racial disparities that exist in our present incarceration system. Michelle Alexander discusses many Supreme Court cases that “bless” racial discriminating done by the police and prosecutors. However, it seems to me that she does not actually consider the nature of the case.

The case I am particularly referring to is McCleskey v. Kemp. The crux of the case centered around an African American man, Warren McCleskey, facing the death penalty for killing an officer in an armed robbery. This case was appealed to the Supreme Court due to supposed evidence of racial bias in the fact that the prosecutor pursued the death penalty because of race. It seems like the author is set on proving that the Supreme Court has fostered an environment for the development of racial disparities, that she forget the fact that the man was a murderer! Whether or not he deserves the death penalty is obviously an important key, but so are his actions. Ms. Alexander seems to disregard his action and wants to prove a certain “injustice” towards the criminal. It seems to me that she is acting from a biased stand point through her argument. She is definitely not presenting the case in an objective light but with a light rife with her own feelings. It is also pretty terrifying that the author accuses the Supreme Court of encouraging racism, she definitely does not point out all the trials that actually took place. In a sense, she expects fairness from the justice system, yet she does not provide a fair assessment of the court herself.

My question is does the author truly present a fair view of the justice system? Does this weaken her entire argument?

David Zilberman